The Tensions of Grace
Part 5, Atonement and Universal Reconciliation
Last post in this series.
Many of my readers subscribe to universal reconciliation, that all of humanity will, in the end, embrace and be embraced by the grace of God. Given this, it's fair to ask how universalist accounts balance the tensions of grace.
I think the main point to make is that visions differ here.
For example, you could posit the view that, since God loves all of humanity, always has and always will, there isn't much work for Christ to do in regards to atonement. Jesus' death on the cross is simply unnecessary, since God loves everyone already. Since no one is ever at risk, no one ever needs saving.
Given this view, what then is the death of Jesus all about?
Many would argue that the death of Jesus makes the love of God visible within history, and exposes our rejection of that love. The cross, then, demonstrates God's love and persuades us to love. This is the moral exemplar view of the atonement. The cross shows us how much God loves us and teaches us how to love.
Stepping back, if you held a view like this, then your creation theology would be, in my estimation, carrying the weight of grace. Beyond a moral pedagogy, soteriology is simply not needed.
This is, in fact, why many people object to universalism, that it diminishes or nullifies the atonement and the work of Christ. However, you can believe in both universal reconciliation and the atonement. In this view, Christ is doing more on the cross than making the love of God visible. Christ is actually repairing the damage of sin and defeating the cosmic powers holding humanity captivity. Christ makes a way where there was no way. In this particular variety of universalism, soteriology carries as much grace as any traditional view of atonement. You can believe, for example, in both universal reconciliation and penal substitutionary atonement. To be clear, this isn't a common view, but there is no incompatibility between these views. The only issue is if you believe the offer of grace extends post-mortem. That's really the only issue between traditional views of atonement and universal reconciliation: Does death stop the soteriological clock? Traditional views of the atonement say, yes, the clock stops at death where you fate is fixed. The offer of grace is time-stamped. Universalist views of the atonement say, no, Jesus defeated death and holds the keys of Hades. Time never runs out on God, the offer of grace persists post-mortem.
The point to be observed is that, even in universalist visions of salvation, soteriology can still carry the weight of grace. Because of the fall, existence now demands saving grace. You still have to accept, by faith, the atoning work of Christ. As Acts 4.12 says concerning Christ: "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”
In summary, universalist accounts of salvation balance the tensions of grace differently. Some accounts will front-load grace and marginalize the atonement. Soteriology is put to the side. But other views of universal reconciliation place as much weight upon soteriology as any traditionally held views of the atonement. People are lost until they accept Christ. Full stop. The only issue is how death affects God's offer of grace, if it terminates at death or persists.
"If our religion is based on salvation, our chief emotions will be fear and trembling. If our religion is based on wonder, our chief emotion will be gratitude."- Carl Jung
“...Many people object to universalism, that it diminishes or nullifies the atonement and the work of Christ. However, you can believe in both universal reconciliation and the atonement. In this view, Christ is doing more on the cross than making the love of God visible. Christ is actually repairing the damage of sin and defeating the cosmic powers holding humanity captivity….
“The point to be observed is that, even in universalist visions of salvation, soteriology can still carry the weight of grace. Because of the fall, existence now demands saving grace. You still have to accept, by faith, the atoning work of Christ.”
Here is where I stumble over Western christology: its focus on “the fall” and the need for an atonement in linear time that has to be accomplished FOR us by a mashiach, an anointed one, THE anointed one.
What we call “sin” arises from our finiteness and fallibility as human animals. Our biological nature drives us to seek safety and pleasure, first for ourselves and then for whomever we include as extended family.
However, as animals with consciousness and conscience, we have the capacity to evaluate the consequences of our actions for ourselves and others. If we recognize that we have caused harm by our animal efforts toward safety and pleasure, that brings us up short. We call it sin.
But why do we then look for a more powerful being who will fix the damage for us? Where is our own accountability?
For me, the work of the Christ is, first, to show us when we have caused harm and, second, to teach us how to make amends to those whom we have harmed—including ourselves.
This work is not a transaction whereby the Christ atones for my sins. It is, rather, a challenging conversation which moves me toward making atonement.
I see more deeply into the hurtful consequences of my finite, fallible actions. And then, perhaps, I learn ways to heal some of the injury I have done, to seek reconciliation with those I have harmed.
Hebrew scripture speaks of numerous meshichim. Jesus is mine, the one who, through his own life, and then through the lives of all who emulate him, opens the doors of reconciliation to billions of beings beyond the porous boundaries of the Jewish world.